Euro Commission refuses Euro Parliament order to ban dog & cat fur, from ANIMAL PEOPLE Jan/Feb 2004

[Guest guest]

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, January/February 2004:

 

Euro Commission refuses Euro Parliament order to ban dog & cat fur

 

BRUSSELS--Claiming lack of jurisdiction, the European

Commission has refused to draft a ban on dog and cat fur imports into

the European Union that was overwhelmingly approved in principle by

the European Parliament in mid-December 2003.

To take effect, the ban would have to be presented by the EC

to the Council of Ministers, and would then have to receive the

ministers' ratification.

Introduced by Struan Stevenson, a Conservative member from

Edinburgh, Scotland, with four cosponsors, the dog and cat fur

import ban was endorsed by 346 members of the European Parliament in

all, with only 314 needed for a majority. Stevenson also claims to

have the support of Council of Ministers members representing France,

Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Greece, Denmark,

Sweden, and Britain.

Denmark on October 1, 2003 independently enacted a law

banning traffic in dog and cat fur. Violators may be jailed for up

to four months.

The EU dog and cat fur ban was demanded by the European

Parliament in only the sixth order that the Parliament has ever given

to the EC to draft legislation, a procedure bypassing the usual

legislative process.

The European Parliament previously used this procedure to

recognize Nazi genocide, to oppose terrorism in Spain, to oppose

air and sea piracy, to improve regulation of livestock transport,

and to address the procedure for electing EC members.

Despite the strength of support for the ban on dog and cat

fur imports, however, the ban " appeared to hit an obstacle, "

Douglas Fraser of the Glasgow Herald reported on December 21, " when

EC officials refused to accept that they have powers to pass such a

law. The consumer affairs directorate in Brussels said it was a

matter for the trade directorate, and a spokesperson for Pascal

Lamy, the trade commissioner, commented, 'We don't have community

competence on this. Competence for it is in the hands of member

states. "

Dog and cat fur garments " have appeared in European stores as

gloves, homeopathic arthritis aids, hair bows for children, trim

on sweaters, and linings for boots and gloves, as well as on toy

cat figurines, " charged Nirj Deva, member of the European

Parliament for the South East of England. Deva is also the

Conservative party spokesperson for overseas development.

" European consumers are not aware of what they are

purchasing, since Asian merchants use fraudulent labels, dye the

fur to look like faux fur, or do not use labels at all, " Deva

continued.

Stevenson campaigned with examples including a blanket made

from the pelts of four golden retrievers, bought in Copenhagen; a

full-length coat made from as many as 42 German shepherd puppies,

bought in Berlin; and intact cat pelts, bought in Barcelona.

The sources of the pelts include the dog and cat meat markets

in South Korea and southern and coastal China, and the remaining

budkas, or " dog-skinning factories, " which for centuries performed

animal control duties in the former Iron Curtain nations of Europe.

Only since the fall of Communism have the budkas gradually been

replaced by western-style animal control departments.

Proponents of the proposed EU ban on dog and cat fur imports

contend that budkas are also still secretly operating in Belgium and

Spain, where industrial collection and marketing of dog and cat fur

from impounded animals was openly practiced as recently as the 1970s.

" The American organization which published the claim about

Belgium has absolutely no proof at all, and certainly not of the

assertion that cats are picked up from the streets to be put into cat

fur farms, " said Ann de Greef, director of the Belgian group Global

Action in the Interest of Animals, after GAIA investigated the

matter in mid-2003.

De Greef acknowledged, however, that imported dog and cat

fur products are sold in Belgium and in the Netherlands.

" From DNA testing done by the Academic Medical Centre in

Amsterdam on behalf of the [Dutch] association Bont voor Dieren, it

appears that dog fur is sold in Dutch shops. Ninety-five products

were tested, including clothing, cat toys, and hair accessories, "

De Greef told Herma Caelen, Secretary General of the European

Vegetarian Union. " Five items appeared to be made of dog fur, " De

Greef said.

De Greef cited fur-trimmed jackets sold by the fashion chain

Didi in the winter of 2002-2003. " According to Didi, they bought

the jackets from a supplier in the Far East who twice assured them it

was rabbit fur. Didi has decided to use only fake fur in its

collection, " De Greef added.

De Greef said that the Academic Medical Centre " believes that

there are probably many more items that contain dog fur " than were

identified, " because it is no longer possible to isolate DNA in much

of the fur. After the death of an animal, DNA breaks up, " she

explained, " and further, the fur is subjected to processing which

further destroys much of the DNA. "

More sophisticated testing could still make a positive

identification, but would be more expensive and difficult to do.

" Since the U.S. enacted a similar ban in 2000, European

markets have seen a rise in items deceptively called gae-wolf,

sobaki, Asian jackal, wildcat, goyangi, and katsenfelle, " said

Betsy Dribben, European director for Humane Society International, a

subsidiary of the Humane Society of the U.S.

Similar items have been found in Australia, HIS disclosed in

July 2003.

But the implied diversion of dog and cat fur products from

the U.S. to Europe and Australia is not actually happening, U.S. fur

trade investigators believe.

Instead, the trade is expanding.

Mislabeled and non-labeled dog and cat fur products appear to

be coming into the U.S. through a loophole in the 1952 Fur Products

Labeling Act. Section 301.39 of the act originally exempted fur

garments priced at less than $20 from the requirement that fur

garments must be accurately identified as to species of origin. This

exempted most items made from dogs, cats, and rabbits.

In 1980 the exemption was extended to garments priced at less

than $150--but in 1998 language was added stipulating that, " The

exemption provided for herein shall not be applicable: (1) to any

dog or cat fur product; (2) if any false, deceptive or misleading

representations as to the fur contained in the fur product are made. "

Since 1998, any dog or cat fur product imported into the

U.S. is supposed to be so identified.

In November 2000 former U.S. President Bill Clinton signed

into law the total ban on imports of dog and cat fur products to

which Dribben referred, but as HSUS acknowledged at the time, " The

final version of the dog and cat fur legislation negotiated between

the House and Senate did not include the requirement sought by HSUS

for labeling of all fur products regardless of their price. Under

current law, products with fur valued at less than $150 do not have

to be labeled. Dog and cat fur products, which sell at the low end

of the market, are commonly mislabeled or sold without labels to

disguise their species content so that American consumers and

retailers will not realize what they are buying. "

Because fur items made from other species need not be labeled

if priced at under $150, there is no close inspection of inexpensive

imported fur goods to intercept dog and cat fur.

However, the language of the ban passed in 2000 mandates

that " The regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury shall provide

for a process by which testing laboratories, whether domestic or

foreign, can qualify for certification by the United States Customs

Service by demonstrating the reliability of the procedures used for

determining the type of fur contained in articles intended for sale

or consumption in interstate commerce. "

This would allow U.S. animal protection organizations to

establish their own certified testing laboratory to examine fur

goods, determine species of origin, and recommend cases to federal

prosecutors.

The 2000 law also provides for a " a reward of not less than

$500 [to be paid] to any person who furnishes information that

establishes or leads to a civil penalty assessment, debarment, or

forfeiture of property for any violation of this section or any

regulation issued under this section. "

--Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

 

--

Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper

Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE

Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/

 

Please do not send attachments! - please paste information in

your message.

 

Something to think about: We believe that the Golden Rule

applies to animals, too. We don't accept the prevailing notion

that " people come first' " or that " people are more important than

animals. " Animals feel pain and suffer just as we do, and it is

almost always humans making animals suffer and not the other way

around. Yet in spite of how cruelly people behave towards animals

-- not to mention human cruelty to other humans -- we are supposed to

believe that humans are superior to other animals. If people want

to fancy themselves as being of greater moral worth than the other

creatures on this earth, we should begin behaving better than they

do, and not worse. Let's start treating everyone as we would like

to be treated ourselves.